Tag Archives: Delia Smith

Diary Blog, 29 September 2022, including thoughts about the political fallout from the current economic crisis, and about the possibility of Russian nuclear attack


Afternoon music

[Memorial, “The Conquerors of Space”, Moscow]

On this day a year ago

Labour, the Conservatives, the economy, and the political fallout

but

Thus one Marian Kennedy [“writes fiction; international lawyer“] proves that she cannot see the wood from the trees.

The whole point about what seems to have been Delia Smith’s cri de coeur [I did not actually see Peston] is that the present Parliamentary system, the “three main parties” set-up, the voting system, the system for selection of Parliamentary candidates etc, is just not working properly.

It is because of this parallel malfunctioning that, inter alia, we have had as Prime Minister a part-Jew, part-Levantine bad joke, and now we have, in the same high position, a woman who really only became an MP on her back, frankly. The same malfunctioning has resulted in a pretty poor female barrister becoming Home Secretary (not that all of her views are wrong), and a rather thick half-caste with a “degree” in Hospitality Management becoming the new Foreign Secretary; not to mention the woolly-headed African who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he did attend Eton and Cambridge (both, incidentally, hugely over-rated, as are so many UK institutions: Oxford University, the Church, the Bar, SIS, MI5, the armed forces, the Monarchy etc).

The whole system is broken. Delia Smith may have been unable, on a TV programme, to articulate it in detail, but she got the basics right.

Ironically, “In 2014, [Kwasi Kwarteng’s] book War and Gold: A Five-Hundred-Year History of Empires, Adventures and Debt was published. It is a history of capital and the enduring ability of money, when combined with speculation, to ruin societies.[29] “

Ha.

Another opinion from the same lady as above:

Well, Corbyn actually did better than many believe, electorally, but what sank him and Labour in 2019 was mainly a triad of factors: the relentless, daily, Jew-lobby campaign since 2015, painting him as terrorist-enabler, hopeless etc; the eccentric FPTP voting system, and finally the way in which political snake-oil salesman and “controlled opposition” big cheese, Nigel Farage, stabbed his own party and its candidates in the back, with most Brexit Party votes then falling to Conservative candidates.

Labour under Starmer was also in the doldrums, and deserved to be, but now that the Conservative Party has hit (surely?) rock-bottom in terms of its top leadership, Labour can just sit and rake in its chips.

Not very many people really like, trust, or support Labour or Starmer, but in a basically binary system where one party is sawing off the branch upon which it has been sitting, the other party, Labour, has every chance, simply by default.

Talking about how the Conservative Party is ruining its own electoral chances, I was frankly astounded to read that, by reason of Kwarteng’s unbelievable mismanagement and lack of nous, the present Government may actually fund their tax cuts for the affluent and wealthy by cutting pensions and benefits in real terms. For example, by only uprating State pensions by, say, 5% at a time when inflation is forecast to go to at least 10% and maybe 20%.

Already, we see that most State benefits (including Pension Guarantee Credit) will not be uprated to anything like inflation-level.

Who votes Conservative? Mostly, most obviously, people over 60, and especially people over 80. This is the absolute core of Conservative Party electoral support. If you cheat them (for the second year running) of the promised “triple lock” uprating, then you, the Conservative Party, are going to be well and truly f*****. Not a term I use often on the blog.

We know how nuanced the FPTP voting system can be. It was said that, in 2017, a few thousand voters in a small number of constituencies (a hundred or two hundred in each) could actually have changed the outcome of the General Election.

In 2019, 67 seats were won by a margin of less than 5% of votes cast. In 2017, 97 seats.

In 2019, 141 seats were won or held by margins of less than 10% of votes cast:

More than a fifth of all constituencies.

Not only are pensioners (of which, incidentally, I am now one) most likely to vote Conservative (not me, of course), but they are most likely, of all age groups, to vote at all, both in general and via postal balloting.

If the pensioners and the “struggling middle”, as well as the low paid and more obviously poor, decide to vote elsewhere than Conservative, or even simply not to vote at all, the Conservative party might lose an incredible number of seats. Maybe a hundred; maybe two hundred.

At present, the Conservative Party has 357 seats in the Commons (out of 650). If that were to be reduced to 257, or 157, the effect would be seismic.

If the Conservative Party leadership think that the English and general UK “grey vote” is guaranteed whatever, and that those votes can be taken for granted, they are very much mistaken. That’s what idiots like Jim Murphy thought about the Scottish Labour vote, once.

More tweets seen

I remember seeing, on American TV, the Poll Tax riots in London about 32 years ago. Could it happen again, or would it this time be a slower burn, via everything from simple poverty-fuelled shoplifting to occasional outbreaks of politically-oriented vandalism, or even “protest” assassination of MPs and/or ministers?

An open question.

See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11260331/Ministers-slash-BILLIONS-budgets-reassure-markets-finances-control.html.

Over the past decade, I have had the feeling that the succession of poor Prime Ministers were not fatal for the Conservative Party, because all that the Party had to do was to replace the leader, and the voters would give the new leader a chance. At the same time, Labour was falling into a niche composed of public service workers, and some of the non-white “communities”.

Now, there is a change, caused mainly by the sheer ineptitude of the “unelected” (in terms of true mandate) Prime Minister and her Cabinet. There is a feeling that, this time, the Conservatives have really hit rock bottom, and even if people are not going to vote Labour, the Conservatives have definitely lost the votes of the vast majority.

This could be almost existential for the Conservative Party.

More tweets seen

The NWO endgame sees Russia (Russian Federation) as a broken-up series of minor states, all ruled by the money power [ZOG] and completely without military might. However, I think that, before that can come to pass, Russia may be goaded into launching its nuclear arsenal against the West, and particularly the USA.

After WW2, despite the Cold War, the American public and decision-makers thought the USA invulnerable. It could invade other countries, interfere with other countries, even bomb (conventionally) other countries, without any comeback.

The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center changed that. The incredible, totally scalded, American reaction said it all to me— “we can be hit“…

All the same, that was over 20 years ago now, and the Americans still do not really think that their cities might one day be rubble, like those the Americans (and British) reduced to rubble in WW2: Berlin, other German cities, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc.

Looking at the pronouncements of various American generals, former commanders, think tanks etc, their consensus seems to be that the USA can match the Russian nuclear arsenal, and more, and that even a nuclear exchange could be limited, and then halted. I think not.

If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine, and if then “NATO” (USA/NWO) attacks Russia or Russian concentrations or bases, whether or not with nuclear forces, I think that an escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange more than likely.

True, that would probably mean, as well as elimination of Russian air bases, missile centres, ports, destruction of major Russian cities such as Moscow, Petersburg, Novosibirsk and others. However, it would not be a one-sided conflict.

Russia has, it is said, perhaps 6,000 nuclear weapons. Let us say that it managed to land at least one on each of the top 100 American cities.

The top 10? New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Antonio.

So all of those, and maybe the next 90 largest cities…

How long would it be before the USA recovered? 100 years? 200?

What about the UK? London gone. The next half-dozen largest cities gone, so maybe Birmingham, Manchester, Cardiff, Plymouth, Southampton, Bristol. Others, too. All ports of any size. Air bases etc.

There should be serious thought now about how not to get into a nuclear exchange with Russia.

This whole “pro-Ukraine” (anti-Russia) campaign is being spearheaded by the Jew element. You only have to look at social media to see it.

More music

[Watts, Ariadne]

Late tweets

Ha. Woolly-head Kwasi— what an Uncle Tom for the milieu of the hedge funds.

Is it inoperative? Why is gas apparently bubbling out of it, then? Puzzling.

“NATO” is just a label. Think “New World Order” [“NWO”].

Quite.

Completely loony.

Some of these “Covid” and “vaccine” fanatics would go along with the sacrifice of all first-born children if some law, confirmed as “necessary” by priests of medicine in white outfits, were laid down by a supposedly “caring sharing” government. Watch this space.

We now live in an infested slum, nationwide. Indeed —judging by the way (West) Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have declined since the 1980s— Europe-wide, though there may be exceptions. Paris? Don’t remind me (it’s too sad).

Ha ha! An obvious fake. Unusual. Kiev-regime propaganda has generally been very skilled since the start of the conflict, easily beating the few Russian attempts to counter it.

Now…where is the nuclear football?

Will we still be here this time next year?

Late music

[Germany 1945: “We are fighting for the future of our children“]